AFTER the 1986 People Power Revolution, the Senate was restored under the 1987 Constitution. I had the privilege of being one of the 24 senators elected nationally to the reborn chamber. I was also elected majority leader that same year.
Those were hopeful days. Democracy had returned, institutions were being rebuilt, and Congress faced the enormous task of translating the promises of a new Constitution into law.
I remember consulting then-Senate president Jovito Salonga about moving our priority measures. The anti-plunder bill was high on the list. That was relatively easy; no senator wished to be seen publicly defending plunder, after all.
However, the anti-political dynasty bill was another matter.
As the measure entered the interpellation period, the list of senators wishing to raise questions grew longer. In the House of Representatives, there was hardly any movement. Then leadership changed in both chambers. Other urgent matters, including the future of the United States military bases, began consuming congressional time and political capital.
Because of this, the proposed law implementing the constitutional prohibition against political dynasties was gradually pushed aside. While it was not decisively defeated after a great national debate, it was delayed, marginalized and finally buried without ceremony.
It seemed like Congress had discovered that the most effective way to kill a politically inconvenient measure is to never vote against it. Simply keep talking until time runs out.
Thirty-nine years later, however, the Supreme Court has opened the grave.
In a unanimous decision, the court declared that Congress has a mandatory constitutional duty to enact a law defining and prohibiting political dynasties. Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution states: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”
For nearly four decades, Congress has treated the last six words — “as may be defined by law” — as an escape hatch. Because no enabling law had been passed, the prohibition remained a constitutional command without an effective legal mechanism for its enforcement.
The Supreme Court has now made clear that congressional inaction cannot continue indefinitely. The Constitution imposed a duty to perform, not an invitation that can simply be set aside.
But can Congress dig up the anti-political dynasty bill’s body and breathe life into it, the way Jesus called Lazarus out of the tomb?
To be fair, the prospects are better today than they were at any time since 1987. Measures are moving in both chambers. More importantly, public frustration over entrenched political families has grown exponentially and more visible. The Supreme Court’s ruling has removed the familiar excuse that legislation may be postponed until a more convenient season.
Yet the central contradiction remains: Congress is being asked to regulate the political families that have long exercised considerable influence within Congress itself.
The dynasties we worried about in the first post-EDSA Senate now appear modest compared with what we see today. Political clans occupy Senate seats, congressional districts, governorships, mayoralties and even party-list positions. Relatives succeed one another, exchange offices, or simply run simultaneously for different positions without any comprehensive statutory prohibition to stop them.
These are no longer ordinary dynasties, but dynasties on steroids.
That is why the mere passage of a law should not be mistaken for victory. Congress could still technically comply with the Supreme Court ruling while producing a measure so diluted that it changes almost nothing.
The real battle will be fought over definitions.
How close must the family relationship be? Will the prohibition cover only relatives holding office simultaneously, or also those who succeed one another? Will it apply to national and local positions alike? Can one family member run for Congress while others hold provincial, municipal, or party-list posts? Will the law prevent political families from merely transferring relatives to neighboring districts or using stand-ins and political proxies as temporary placeholders?
A law riddled with exceptions may give the Constitution a body without giving it life.
The purpose of the prohibition is not to punish families or to claim that every member of a political clan is unqualified. Some do come from distinguished families and serve with ability and integrity. But elections cease to offer equal opportunity when a few families accumulate the money, machinery, name recall and patronage needed to monopolize public office across generations.
The simple truth is this: No family has a hereditary right to govern. We are not a monarchy.
Political dynasties also weaken accountability. When relatives control the executive and legislative offices of the same locality, who investigates or punishes whom? When family members dominate the province, municipality and congressional district, institutional checks become merely family conversations. And when accountability is lost, the public is left to bear the consequences by way of lost or misused resources.
The issue is therefore larger than surnames; it concerns the concentration of political power and the closing of democratic space.
The Supreme Court can order Congress to perform its constitutional duty. It cannot, however, dictate the courage with which that duty will be performed. Neither can it prevent lawmakers from creating loopholes large enough for entire clans to pass through.
That responsibility ultimately falls upon the public. Citizens must scrutinize not only whether an anti-dynasty bill is passed, but what kind of law emerges. They must watch every amendment, exception and qualification inserted during deliberations to make sure its true spirit and purpose will not be lost.
After 39 years, the Supreme Court has rolled away the stone. But it cannot command Lazarus to walk through the halls of Congress. That duty belongs to legislators — and ultimately to citizens who must decide whether public office is a public trust or a family inheritance.
Quo vadis?
Congress can follow the Constitution. Or it can stage a resurrection for public applause while leaving the cadaver dead behind the curtain.
But if Congress truly intends to honor the Constitution, then it must write a law that serves citizens before clans, and the Republic before surnames.
